PRINTERS (MYSORE) PRIVATE LTD. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition arises from an industrial dispute referred by the Government of Mysore to the Labour Court, Bangalore. The dispute purported to be between a limited liability company known as the Printers Mysore Private, Ltd., and the workmen employed by that company. It related to the claims of Respondent 2 Pothan Joseph, whose services as the editor of a newspaper run by the company, viz., 'Deccan Herald', were alleged to have been illegally terminated.

(2.) THE Court posted the case to 4 -11 -58 on which date the Secretary of the Company, K. N. Nettakallappa, appeared. After two more dates of hearing when the statement of claim and the counter to it were filed, the case was adjourned to 20 -12 -58 for the filing of a rejoinder by the. I party. On that day, i.e., 20 -12 -58 the II Party, i. E., the Management Company sent an Assistant Accountant in that employment to represent the Company. The I Party objected to such representation. The Court observed that the Assistant Accountant had not filed any letter of authorisation and that one opportunity would be given to II Party Management to be present in person or through a competent representative and adjourned the case to 30 -12 -1958. On that day issues were framed. The question of II Party's representation does not appear to have come up for consideration. On the next date of hearing i.e., 19 -1 -59 both the parties were granted an adjournment to 27 -1 -59 for filing documents and for arguments regarding the question of representation. On the latter date, arguments were heard and orders were passed by the Court holding that the Assistant Accountant G. S. Rama Rao could not be allowed to represent the Management and calling upon the Management to engage some other persons to represent it. The order is challenged on various grounds in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT is urged by the Petitioner Management that the Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the scope and effect of S. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, that the order denied to the Petitioner its fundamental right of carrying on it business in the manner it is entitled to do according to law inasmuch as it is deprived of the right of appointing an agent and to carry on its business with the help of such an agent and thus offends Art. 19 of the Constitution, that the order is opposed to the principles of natural justice, that the order represents an illegal or an improper exercise of the Court's jurisdiction resulting in grave prejudice to the Petitioner and that it offends Art. 14 of the Constitution as it place the parties in a position of inequality."